The data processing pipeline for the Herschel - HIFI instrument
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The HIFI data processing pipeline was developed to systematically process diagnostic, calibration and astronomical observations taken with the HIFI science instrument as part of the Herschel mission. The HIFI pipeline processed data from all HIFI observing modes within the Herschel automated processing environment, as well as, within an interactive environment. A common software framework was developed to best support the use cases required by the instrument teams and by the general astronomers. The HIFI pipeline was built on top of that and was designed with a high degree of modularity. This modular design provided the necessary flexibility and extensibility to deal with the complexity of batch-processing eighteen different observing modes, to support the astronomers in the interactive analysis and to cope with adjustments necessary to improve the pipeline and the quality of the end-products. This approach to the software development and data processing effort was arrived at by coalescing the lessons learned from similar research based projects with the understanding that a degree of foresight was required given the overall length of the project. In this article, both the successes and challenges of the HIFI software development process are presented. To support future similar projects and retain experience gained lessons learned are extracted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it